Vijitha.K vs M. Ajeesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 5861 Ker

Kerala High Court

Vijitha.K vs M. Ajeesh on 21 August, 2025

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

                                                2025:KER:63197

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

                                &

          THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1947

                     OP (FC) NO. 438 OF 2025

  AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.04.2024 IN   IA NO.1/2023 IN OP

           NO.799 OF 2022 OF FAMILY COURT, OTTAPPALAM

  PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:

      1      VIJITHA.K, AGED 30 YEARS
             D/O SIVAKARAM, KATTUKULAM HOUSE,
             SHORNUR POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679121.

      2      ADVIKA.M(MINOR), AGED 6 YEARS
             D/O VIJITHA.K, KATTUKULAM HOUSE,
             SHORNUR POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
             REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER VIJITHA.K,
             AGED 30 YEARS, D/O SIVAKARAM,
             KATTUKULAM HOUSE, SHORNUR POST,
             OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
             PIN - 679121.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.M.R.SARIN
             SMT.PARVATHI KRISHNA
                                           2025:KER:63197
OP (FC) NO. 438 OF 2025

                            -2-



RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

         M. AJEESH, AGED 36 YEARS
         S/O BALASUBRAHMANYAN, MALAYIL HOUSE,
         ELUMBULASSERY POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
         PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678595.

         BY ADVS.
         SHRI.T.K.SANDEEP
         SMT.SWETHA R.


     THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                     2025:KER:63197
OP (FC) NO. 438 OF 2025

                                  -3-


                          JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioners are the wife and daughter

of the respondent and they are aggrieved by

Ext.P4 order of the learned Family Court,

Ottappalam, which has confined interim

maintenance to them from the later to a sum of

Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,500/- only respectively.

2. Smt.Parvathy Krishna - learned counsel

for the petitioners, argued that the respondent

is a man of great means, earning thirty thousand

rupees per month in salary from a private firm

and enjoying eighty five thousand rupees per

month as income from certain properties - which

he owns in Mannarkkad, Palakkad district. She

contended that, therefore, the holdings of the 2025:KER:63197 OP (FC) NO. 438 OF 2025

learned Family Court, confining the monthly

maintenance to her clients to the afore exiguous

sums, is illegal and unlawful because, it is

common knowledge that a woman cannot survive

with a mere Rs.3000/- per month, nor can a child

of 6 years be asked to fend with Rs.1,500/- per

month. She thus prayed that Ext.P4 be modified,

enhancing the maintenance to a much higher

figure.

3. In response, Sri.T.K.Sandeep - learned

counsel for the respondent, submitted that the

afore assertions of the petitioners are totally

untenable and that his client is earning only

Rs.12,000/- per month, working as an office

staff in a private firm. He added that his

client has a physical disability, namely

stammering, thus being unable to earn anything 2025:KER:63197 OP (FC) NO. 438 OF 2025

more than what he is presently getting; and

further, that he has the burden of taking care

of his aged parents, who are living with him. He

prayed that, therefore, this Court not intervene

with Ext.P4 or enhance the interim maintenance

granted.

4. We have considered the afore rival

submissions on the touchstone of the materials

on record, in particular Ext. P4, the impugned

order.

5. We are fully aware that this matter is

now being considered by us at the stage when the

Original Petition filed by the petitioners is

pending before the learned Family Court. What

has been ordered is only interim maintenance;

and therefore, it would not be within our

competence to enter into the merits of the 2025:KER:63197 OP (FC) NO. 438 OF 2025

disputations of facts, in the absence of

evidence being led by either side.

6. Going by the admitted facts, the

respondent is earning Rs.12,000/- per month. He

says that he is disabled because he has got a

stammer, which baffles us; and when he is

otherwise able-bodied, the declarations of law

by this Court in Shamshad C. v. Shafeena K.

[2025 (1) KLT 380] would certainly get

attracted.

7. Further, even if they are to now take

that the respondent is only earning Rs.12,000/-,

the question is whether it was sufficient for

the learned Family Court to have asked him to

pay a mere Rs.4,500/- for the maintenance of

both his wife and child. Leaving apart the wife,

the child is now six years in age and concededly 2025:KER:63197 OP (FC) NO. 438 OF 2025

attending school. It is common knowledge and

therefore, to be taken judicial notice of, that

the child of that age would require much more

than what has been awarded. The amount of

Rs.1,500/- would not even cover the educational

expenses, much less food, medical expenses and

such other of the child.

8. As this Court has declared in the afore

precedent, an able-bodied man cannot take the

contention that his income is not sufficient to

provide even the most exiguous and necessitous

maintenance to his wife and child. The

maintenance now granted, namely Rs.4,500/- per

month for both, certainly is very exiguous and

inadequate. When the respondent admits that he

is earning Rs.12,000/-, we are certain that the

learned Family Court ought to have fixed the 2025:KER:63197 OP (FC) NO. 438 OF 2025

interim maintenance allowance to be at least

fifty percent of that - which, in our view, is

itself very small and perhaps also inadequate.

However, as an interim measure, at least this

ought to have been done.

9. That said, as regards the claim of the

respondent that he is taking care of his

parents, we see no such assertion to have been

noticed by the learned Family Court in Ext.P4,

nor has he offered any substantiation when this

matter was heard by this Court either.

In such perspective, we allow this

Original Petition and modify Ext.P4, enhancing

the monthly interim maintenance due to the 1 st

petitioner to be Rs.4,000/- per month; and to

the 2nd petitioner to be Rs.2,000/- per month.

This modification shall take effect from the 2025:KER:63197 OP (FC) NO. 438 OF 2025

date of this judgment; but the respondent will

also be obligated to abide by Ext.P4, as it was

originally, from 15.04.2024 till this date.

We conclude, clarifying that none of our

observations will fetter or trammel the learned

Family Court while it disposes of the Original

Petition in due course.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

Sd/-

                                 M.B.SNEHALATHA
akv                                   JUDGE
                                              2025:KER:63197
OP (FC) NO. 438 OF 2025





              APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 438/2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT-P1        THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.P

799/2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM DATED 31.10.2022.

EXHIBIT-P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN I.A 1/2023 IN O.P 799/2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM DATED 21.11.2023.

EXHIBIT-P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN I.A NO. 1/2023 IN O.P NO. 799/2022 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALLAM DATED 01.01.2024.

EXHIBIT-P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A 1/2023 IN O.P NO 799/2022 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM DATED 15.04.2025.